interesting and which compels attention.  A mere confused or disorderly complex, wanting altogether in unity, could hardly be expected to secure attention, if there is any truth in the principle, already recognized, that the definite has in ideation a distinct advantage over the vague.  Here again the notes suggest the method of interpretation.  “The broken lines,” says one, “tended to come together, and to take the form of the continuous figure.”  Another remarks:  “The broken figure suggests a whole connected figure; the continuous is complete, the broken wants to be.”  In virtue of their power to excite and direct the activity of the attention the interrupted lines seem to have been able to suggest the unity which is wanting in them as they stand.  “The broken lines,” says another, “seemed to run out and unite, and then to separate again”—­a remark which shows a state of brisk and highly suggestive activity in the processes implied in attention to these lines.  And a glance at the diagram will show how readily the union of the broken lines may be made.  These were arranged symmetrically because the lines of the completed figures were so arranged, in order to equalize as far as possible whatever aesthetic advantage a symmetrical arrangement might be supposed to secure.

It thus appears that, whatever the effect in ideation of unity in the impression, the effect is much greater when we have complexity in unity.  The advantage of unity is undoubtedly the advantage which goes with definiteness of impression, which implies definite excitations and inhibitions, and that concentration of energy and intensity of effect in which undirected activity is wanting.  But a bare unity, it appears, is less effective than a diversified unity.  To what extent this diversity may be carried we make no attempt to determine; but, within the limits of our experiment, its value in the ideational rivalry seems to be indisputable.  And the results of the experiment afford fresh proof of the importance of the motor element in internal perception.

TABLE XIII.

1           2           3           4           5       Indiv.  Av. 
F     V     F     V     F     V     F     V     F     V     F     V
I. 25    29    26    29    29.5  26.5  25.5  30    24.5  31    26.1  29.1
II. 56    56    55    55    54    54.5  47.5  47.5  45    50    51.5  52.6
III.  2.5   5.5   2.5   8.5   6.5   5    16.5   9.5  17    15     9.0   8.7
IV. 48    48    31.5  31.5  31    46    51.5  51.5  35    52    39.4  45.8
V. 54    54    56.5  52    56    56    56    56    54    56    55.3  54.8
VI. 39    29    30    33.5  35.5  22.5  32.5  34    33.5  24.5  34.1  28.7
VII. 46    55    54.5  46.5  46.5  50    49.5  54    47    46    48.7  50.3
VIII.  9    14.5  23    20.5  23.5  22    18    14.5  16    17    17.9  17.7
IX. 43    43    46.5  46.5  45.5  45.5  43.5  43.5  46    47.5  44.9  45.2
X. 28    26.5  21    29.5  26.5  26.5  21.5  31.5  25    29    24.4  28.6
XI. 23.5  46    19.5  35.5  20    46    24    47.5  28.5  19.5  23.1  38.9
34.00 36.95 33.27 35.27 34.05 36.41 35.09 38.14 33.77 35.23 34.03 36.40

   F:  Figure (in outline).  V:  Vertical lines.